Trump takes aim at 3D-printed guns. *Update Judge blocks release of plans for 3D-printed guns amid Dem outrage*

[tenthumbs]

Cody Wilson destroys Chris Wallace's argument!


Aug. 05, 2018 - 7:14 - Director Cody Wilson explains why Americans should have access to information to make guns in the privacy of their own homes on 'Fox News Sunday.'

http://video.foxnews.com/v/581826404...#sp=show-clips

[Leader]

Cody Wilson destroys Chris Wallace's argument!


Aug. 05, 2018 - 7:14 - Director Cody Wilson explains why Americans should have access to information to make guns in the privacy of their own homes on 'Fox News Sunday.'

http://video.foxnews.com/v/581826404...#sp=show-clips

If these plans were released 5 years ago & downloaded over 100k times, how many deaths have been attributed to them?
That alone should tell you how massive a problem this is.

Or.... is it that they don't have serial numbers is why we have no record of any of them ever being used in a crime?

[Jackam]

Or.... is it that they don't have serial numbers is why we have no record of any of them ever being used in a crime?

Ghost guns for Ghost Crimes.

[tenthumbs]

Does anyone remember this? They never give up!

How the gun control lobbies nearly tricked Congress into banning millions of ordinary guns.

David Kopel|Aug. 7, 2018 6:39 pm

Have you heard about the "undetectable plastic gun"? The gun control lobbies call it is "tailor-made for terrorism." The Washington Post reports that a state sponsor of terrorism is already attempting to obtain these guns. A Post columnist warns that the police "vehemently oppose the introduction of plastic guns into our armed society." Newsweek predicts the NRA will face a member revolt for opposing legislation to ban plastic guns: "This time the gun lobby may have shot itself in the foot."

The above is not today's news. It's the news from 1985 to 1988, the years of the first plastic gun panic. The supposed "plastic gun" was the Glock pistol, which contains more than a pound of metal, and is easily identified by metal detectors.

Today, millions of Americans own Glock pistols, and they are widely recognized as among the most common and ordinary of handguns. But back in 1985, the Glock was brand new, and the gun control lobbies found a brand new opportunity to terrify the American public. Many politicians and much of the press were eager to embrace the panic. Congress came close to enacting a wide-ranging gun ban.

This article tells the story of the first plastic gun panic.

http://reason.com/volokh/2018/08/07/...stic-gun-panic

[DrScaryGuy]

Does anyone remember this? They never give up!

How the gun control lobbies nearly tricked Congress into banning millions of ordinary guns.

David Kopel|Aug. 7, 2018 6:39 pm



http://reason.com/volokh/2018/08/07/...stic-gun-panic

if it wasn't for that panic, glock would have spent years trying to build publicity... they didn't need to thans to anti gun loons. same as "ghost guns" and "3d printed guns" and "80% guns". Cody Wilson himself said that the fuss over "ghost guns" is why he called his tabeltop mill Ghost Gunner and that he scrapped the name they already had for it when he heard the term.

[METL]

I never even remotely said you shouldn’t be allowed to own firearms, don’t put words in my mouth. I agree you probably shouldn’t be allowed to do a personal transfer without conducting a background check first just because you assume on good faith the other guy isn’t going to do anything wrong with it.

I *should* be able to take as many illicit substances as I want because it’s my body. I *should* be able to drive as fast as I want down the freeway as long as I don’t hurt anyone. I *shouldn’t* have to pay taxes for anything I don’t want to support (I.e. a border wall). There are a lot of things we’ve made illegal because we’ve decided as a society it’s better that way, although there are still some debates amongst those.

Of course, none of this will stop a bad person from doing something illegal because they want to. It’s to dissuade an otherwise good person from potentially doing something stupid.

Those are both true!

[Cocowheats]

....I agree you probably shouldn’t be allowed to do a personal transfer without conducting a background check first just because you assume on good faith the other guy isn’t going to do anything wrong with it...

That's how ALL firearm sales are done. When the FFL sells you your new gun, they assume on good faith, based on your CPL and/or NICS check, that you aren't going to do anything illegal with it. As we have seen, passing such checks hasn't stopped people from doing crimes with firearms they legally purchased/obtained.

Laws only restrict the law abiding....

[tenthumbs]

More from Cody Wilson. This man is as sharp as a tack! It's well worth the time to view.

[castrotikon]

He said that YOU should not be allowed, because YOU are so concerned that YOU might sell to the wrong person. The subject of "Universal background checks) was not brought up. Plus, where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that there is a, or any, qualification attached?


So, you don't support the rest of the constitution either? Article IV Sec 4 more or less requires secure borders! Then there is that prohibition thing from 1919. How did that work out for us? It only lasted 14 years and created the largest criminal enterprise the US ever saw at that point.


If you admit that you can't stop the criminal with these attitudes and laws, why do you want to burden the lawful person with undue concerns of something that is merely possible, yet is not significant source of firearms for the criminals?

It is known that most "crime guns" are obtained through another criminal act, i.e. stolen etc.

Article IV Sec 4 does not say anything about secure borders, it guarantees states protection from a foreign invasion. As much as the right would like to believe, Mexico is hardly "invading" the US.

That's how ALL firearm sales are done. When the FFL sells you your new gun, they assume on good faith, based on your CPL and/or NICS check, that you aren't going to do anything illegal with it. As we have seen, passing such checks hasn't stopped people from doing crimes with firearms they legally purchased/obtained.

Laws only restrict the law abiding....

Perhaps I misspoke, no, they have no way of knowing what you intend on doing with it. But by conducting a NICS check, they are at least doing some due diligence in checking that you do not have a criminal background. You have no way of knowing this during a personal transfer. The very fact that you are required to conduct a NICS check is evidence that the FFL isn't assuming on good faith that you should be able to purchase a firearm...you have no such obligation during a personal sale other than your judgement.

By that rationale, we should not have any law that limits anyone because criminals are just going to break them anyways so what's the point of inconveniencing the law abiding? i.e. If illegal/criminal immigrants are just going to get into this country illegally, what's the point of having legal immigration if it's just going to inconvenience the law abiding immigrants that try and come into this country correctly?

[Leader]

Article IV Sec 4 does not say anything about secure borders, it guarantees states protection from a foreign invasion. As much as the right would like to believe, Mexico is hardly "invading" the US.




Perhaps I misspoke, no, they have no way of knowing what you intend on doing with it. But by conducting a NICS check, they are at least doing some due diligence in checking that you do not have a criminal background. You have no way of knowing this during a personal transfer. The very fact that you are required to conduct a NICS check is evidence that the FFL isn't assuming on good faith that you should be able to purchase a firearm...you have no such obligation during a personal sale other than your judgement.

By that rationale, we should not have any law that limits anyone because criminals are just going to break them anyways so what's the point of inconveniencing the law abiding? i.e. If illegal/criminal immigrants are just going to get into this country illegally, what's the point of having legal immigration if it's just going to inconvenience the law abiding immigrants that try and come into this country correctly?

Michigan requires background checks & registration on ALL handguns.
Can you show me how this reduces gun crime as opposed to states that do NOT require anything for transfer of ANY firearm?

Show me that it works & I will work to get it with you.
If you can;t show ANY real verifiable example of background checks & other infringements on gun ownership & use actually working, will you help ME work to abolish them?